NCJ Number
17812
Journal
Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume: 50 Issue: 3 Dated: (WINTER 1973) Pages: 498-509
Date Published
1973
Length
12 pages
Annotation
OUTLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA OF LAW AND AN EXAMINATION OF APPROACHES TAKEN BY FEDERAL COURTS TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF PRISONERS AND THE INTERESTS OF PRISON OFFICIALS.
Abstract
CITED AND DISCUSSED ARE RELEVANT COURT DECISIONS OF THE SECOND AND SEVENTH CIRCUIT, INCLUDING THE 1971 DECISION IN SOSTRE V. MCGUINNIS WHICH PROVIDED A GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQUIRED AT DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS WHILE LEAVING PRISON OFFICIALS THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE HOW AND TO WHAT EXTENT THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE TO BE IMPLEMENTED. HIGHLIGHTED IS THE EFFECT OF THE 1972 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISION (IM MORRISSEY V. BREWER) REGARDING THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS OF SEVENTH CIRCUIT RULINGS ON PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS FOR IN-PRISON DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS. CITED IS THE 1973 DECISION IN UNITED STATES EX REL. MILLER V. TWOMEY THAT BEFORE STATUTORY GOOD TIME CREDITS COULD BE REVOKED THE PRISONER MUST RECEIVE ADEQUATE ADVANCE WRITTEN NOTICE OF CHARGES AND BE AFFORDED A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS VERSION OF THE INCIDENT, AND THAT THE FACTUAL DETERMINATION BE MADE BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE OFFICER WHO REPORTED THE INFRACTION. ALSO DISCUSSED IS THE 1973 RULING OF THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON IN IN WORKMAN V. KLEINDIENST. IN THIS CASE, THE COURT REQUIRED TWO SEPARATE HEARING (PRELIMINARY HEARING AND A GOOD TIME FORFEITURE BOARD) BEFORE A FEDERAL PRISONER'S GOOD TIME CREDIT CAN BE REVOKED AND SET OUT THE MINIMUM DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH.